Search

Background: In a previous single center study we found that a standardized drug treatment algorithm (ALGO) was more cost effective than treatment as usual (TAU) for inpatients with major depression. This report aimed to determine whether this promising initial finding could be replicated in a multicenter study.Methods: Treatment costs were calculated for two time periods: the study period (from enrolment to exit from study) and time in hospital (from enrolment to hospital discharge) based on daily hospital charges. Cost per remitted patient during the study period was considered as primary outcome.Results: 266 patients received ALGO and 84 received TAU. For the study period, ALGO costs were significantly lower than TAU (ALGO: 7 848 ± 6 065 €; TAU: 10 033 ± 7 696 €; p = 0.04). For time in hospital, costs were not different (ALGO: 14 734 ± 8 329 €; TAU: 14 244 ± 8 419 €; p = 0.617). Remission rates did not differ for the study period (ALGO: 57.9%, TAU: 50.0%; p=0.201). Remission rates were greater in ALGO (83.3%) than TAU (66.2%) for time in hospital (p = 0.002). Cost per remission was lower in ALGO (13 554 ± 10 476 €) than TAU (20 066 ± 15 391 €) for the study period (p < 0.001) and for time in hospital (ALGO: 17 582 ± 9 939 €; TAU: 21 516 ± 12 718 €; p = 0.036).Limitations: Indirect costs were not assessed. Different dropout rates in TAU and ALGO complicated interpretation.Conclusions: Treatment algorithms enhance the cost effectiveness of the care of depressed inpatients, which replicates our prior results in an independent sample. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sustained efforts at preventing diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) and subsequent leg amputations are sporadic in most health care systems despite the high costs associated with such complications. We sought to estimate effectiveness targets at which cost-savings (i.e. improved health outcomes at decreased total costs) might occur.Methods: A Markov model with probabilistic sensitivity analyses was used to simulate the five-year survival, incidence of foot complications, and total health care costs in a hypothetical population of 100,000 people with diabetes. Clinical event and cost estimates were obtained from previously-published trials and studies. A population without previous DFU but with 17% neuropathy and 11% peripheral artery disease (PAD) prevalence was assumed. Primary prevention (PP) was defined as reducing initial DFU incidence.Results: PP was more than 90% likely to provide cost-savings when annual prevention costs are less than $50/person and/or annual DFU incidence is reduced by at least 25%. Efforts directed at patients with diabetes who were at moderate or high risk for DFUs were very likely to provide cost-savings if DFU incidence was decreased by at least 10% and/or the cost was less than $150 per person per year.Conclusions: Low-cost DFU primary prevention efforts producing even small decreases in DFU incidence may provide the best opportunity for cost-savings, especially if focused on patients with neuropathy and/or PAD. Mobile phone-based reminders, self-identification of risk factors (ex. Ipswich touch test), and written brochures may be among such low-cost interventions that should be investigated for cost-savings potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Evidence suggests that clinical outcomes for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus can be improved through multifactorial treatment. The key challenges in the successful treatment of type 2 diabetes include maintaining tight glycemic control, minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia, controlling cardiovascular risk factors, and reducing or controlling weight. The aim of the present analysis was to evaluate the cost per patient achieving a composite clinical end point (glycosylated hemoglobin <7%, with no weight gain and no hypoglycemic events) in patients with type 2 diabetes in Quebec, Quebec, Canada, receiving liraglutide 1.2 mg, liraglutide 1.8 mg, thiazolidinedione, sulfonylurea, insulin glargine, sitagliptin, or exenatide. Methods The proportion of patients achieving control was taken from a meta-analysis that was based on the Phase III trial program of liraglutide. Treatment costs, estimated from a health care payer perspective, were calculated on the basis of the trials included in the meta-analysis and captured the study drug, needles, self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) test strips, SMBG lancets, and other antidiabetes medications received. Cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per patient achieving the composite end point (cost of control) was evaluated with an economic model developed in Microsoft Excel. No discounting was applied to cost or clinical outcomes because these were not projected beyond a 1-year time horizon. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Findings Liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with the lowest number needed to treat, with 3 patients needing to be treated to bring 1 patient to the composite end point. Pioglitazone was associated with the highest number needed to treat, with 17 patients requiring treatment to bring 1 patient to the composite end point. Evaluation of only annual pharmacy costs indicated that liraglutide 1.8 mg was the most costly treatment at Can$2780 per patient per year. Pioglitazone and glimepiride were associated with the lowest direct annual costs. Combining the clinical efficacy data with the annual cost of medications produced cost of control values of Can$6070 (liraglutide 1.2 mg), Can$6949 (liraglutide 1.8 mg), Can$7237 (glimepiride), Can$7704 (exenatide), Can$8297 (insulin glargine), Can$8741 (pioglitazone), and Can$9270 (sitagliptin) per patient achieving the composite end point. Implications Liraglutide 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg were associated with the lowest cost of control values, driven by the high proportion of patients achieving the composite end point, which offset the higher medication costs. A relatively low cost of control value was achieved for glimepiride, driven by low acquisition costs, despite relatively few patients achieving the composite end point. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare the cost of two treatment regimens for moderate to severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS): conservative inpatient versus outpatient management with paracentesis.Design: A decision-tree mathematical model comparing conservative inpatient versus outpatient management of moderate to severe OHSS was created. The common final pathway of either management was resolution of OHSS. Sensitivity analyses were performed over the range of variables.Main Outcome Measure(s): Total management cost of OHSS.Result(s): The cost of conservative therapy including first-tier complications was $10,099 (range $9,655-$15,044). The cost of outpatient management with paracentesis was $1954 (range $788-$12,041). This resulted in an estimated cost savings of $8145 with outpatient management with paracentesis. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed. Varying the probability of admission after outpatient treatment still indicated that outpatient treatment was the most cost-effective (probability = 1.0, cost = $6110). Varying the duration of hospitalization with primary inpatient treatment was equal to outpatient treatment costs only at a stay of 0.71 days or shorter.Conclusion(s): Our model suggests early outpatient paracentesis for moderate to severe OHSS is the most cost-effective management plan when compared with traditional conservative inpatient therapy. The cost savings for outpatient management persisted throughout a variety of outcome probabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]